The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-18
TIE INSANE HOSPITAL.
The Civil-Service Association Committee Re
ply to the Senate Whtewashing Report.

IN view OF tue renafkaOie report or the com.
mittee appointed by the Senate to investigate
the management of the Insane Hospitals re.
port in which our motives are called in question,
and in which we are charged with wiliful and
malicious falsehood-we feel that it is our duty
to give to the public a true statement Of what
was proved. and also some facts in regard to the
partisan unfairness of the committee
To avoid all possible confusion we would re-
mind the public that the trustees. and not our
selves, were on trial. To begin with, the COM
mttee was wholly Democratic, hence the
unanimity of the report The three Republican
Senators withdrew early in the investigation.
Not only was the tribunal before which we ap-
peared in the closest political sympathy with the
board of trustees, but one of its members, Brana-
man. was a relative of Trustee BurrelL For
this indecency Mr.. Green Smith is responsible.
We were so limited in time that we had to do
without many very important witnesses, yet the
board allowed to introduce witness after
witness to disprove something which was not
charged and which we declared should not,
for lack OF time, attempt to prove. We refer to
the matter of the boilers. The evidence offered
on this point by the trustees to disprove the
made in the House committee is wholly ex parte.
Yet the committee pretended to be guided by
legal rules
Livery OOSbacio was thrown IN our way. ID
lection after objection was raised t. ques-
tons-freoueutly of the most trivial and tech
meal character. With rare exceptions these OBJ
jections were sustained. Whenever we touched
an important point objection would be inter-
posed. and frequently when the answer was not
in accordance with Mr.. Spans theory of the
case, both question and answer would be stricken
| from the record.
The only purpose we had in going before the
| committee prove the truth Of the charges
| contained in the pamphlet to which our names
| appended. which published last fall
Yet every particle of evidence going to show that
| the hospital was managed political machine
was excluded. In the eyes of the committee all
| this was irrelevant The very fact that there
have been 648 chan GEES absolute changes--in the
hospital force in the four years that the present
board has had control is in our opinion, enough
| to show that the institution has been badly man.
aged. But the committee thought differently
1. should be remembered. too, that this was
supplarting not of Republicans by Democrats,
but of Democrats by other Democrats.
AS MIR. Foulke's conduct is criticised by the
committee with some severity, we wish to say
| upon his behalf that he was necessarily absent
| on account of sickness in his family. He is not
| in the habit of running away when there is
| hight on hand. The committee and the trustees
| should remember that the who runs
! away" sometimes lives to fight another day, and,
we are happy to say, Mr.. Foulke is in remark
ably good health. But we will allow him To
| speak for himself. The letter from which this
extract is made is dated Fortress Monroe. March
| IA:
notice the Senate committee seem to REPRESENT in
their report that away. You know what the fact
that had to hunt them up and try to be repre-.
sented When they said they subponaed me they
simply lied also they did when they said that none
of spent over five hours in the investigation that
| excused myself from testifying anything of the
to- but simply asked whether desired to testify. It
was the day that Dr. Fletcher had come out with his
full statement and said that his evidence that
afternoon contained pretty much all that would tes-
tify and that thought it was unnecessary to tes-
tify unless they desired it. and they didn't desire ii
at that stage of tue proceedings This was said to
Bailey.
Now for the report of the Senate committee
The charge of favoritism in the letting of con-
tracts-whether for political other corrupt
considerations specifically denied by these
gentlemen. We are surprised at this. 1t was
expressly admitted and is stated in the re-
port, that the establishments was conducted a
purely partisan basis. If this be So it is to be-
expected that Democrats would be shown some
preference In the awarding of contracts But
this charge is denied, and, the committee
would have the public believe, disproved. What
are the facts? The records of the board show
that John d. Sullivan was paid in the neighbor-
hood of 800. 900 in less than four years; this is
in evidence. Whether he got the contracts or
not. this is what he paid. This represents.
as shown by the records twenty-five months
out OF forty eight. 1t is testified to by Mr. Jor-
dan that Mr.. Sullivan got the contract on sever
al occasions when he was neither the lowest nor
best bidder; and this from positive knowl.
edge derived from examination of the &C.
} copied and rejected bids and of the supplies
> furnished. The excuse for giving him the con.
5 trac. at one time was that he had furnished
SAMPLES while his rivals had not But it does
not appear that the failure to furnish SAMPLES
\ ever lost Sullivan contract. Again,
DR.. Fletcher testifes that, after he had
contracted with Howard Duffy, Of Columbus to
furnish produce at less than one half the bids OF
, either Budd Sullivan, Duffys contract vas
annulled by the order of the board, and Sullivan
furnished the supplies at his own figures. This
) is shown by DR.. Fletcher's report. which is il
evidence, and by his testimony on this subject.
1t is also sworn to by Mr.. Roth. assistant store
= keeper. that DR.. Harrison said Sullivan is oul
( friend" DR.. Fletcher swears that Harrison tolc
him that Sullivan was very angry because some
| of his goods had been rejected and that he wat
going to file charges against Fletcher land Sui
:. Ivan admits this), and that if the board didn'
: remove Fletcher he would file charges agains
Harrison. The superintendent says that DR.
Harrison seemed to be very much agitated ovel
. this. 1t seems clear that Mr.. John e. Sullivan
> > had things very much his own way at the hos
pitaL Yet Mr.. Sulvan's denial is sufficient fol
= the committee. We maintain that this instanc,
= OF itself is enough to sustain the charg
of favoritism. But there were others
The way in which competition was shut out i
explained by the boards own witness, Mr.. Geo
!. W. Stout. He said that he had no contract fo
I | groceries until quite recently, and that he hat
! stopped bidding at one time because it was i'm
! possible to furnish the goods called for at TIL
. 'ridiculously low figures" at which contract
y were let. Tho explanation, of course. is tina
;, the goods called for not furnished. but tina
. other and inferior goods we're. This wa
simply the device bv which those in the rim
= were enabled to underbid those outside. TIL
Overwhelming defense" is the testimony of sew
eral gentlemen that they themselves were no
:, the favoritas of the board But we call atten
g ton to the fact that neither Kreitlein & Schroe
! der. Davis Bros, Camplin 8 Relsner nor MI
! Goulding were put the stand to defend tn
= board. AS for Mr.. Sullivan, he is contradicte
. not only by men whose reputation for truth an
/ veraclty is quite as good as his own but by tn
records of the hospital
The fourth charge is in reference to the incompt
tency of j. S. Hall. steward and bool-keanar of sal